Memory Alpha:Ten Forward/Archive 2005
Geography This subject is at the moment IMHO not at all well organised in MA. Just now I tried to find out how Europe was geographically aligned in Star Trek. Hadn't I known to look at Earth, it would have taken me some time to find. There needs to come some sort of navigational reference to geography, both of Earth as well as other planets, such as Bajor. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 11:07, 2 Nov 2004 (CET) nl:Memory Alpha:Ten Forward de:Memory Alpha:Zehn Vorne Holodeck Characters Since there seems to be a list of virtually everything else, would it be a good idea to create a list of holodeck characters? It's not like there isn't enough of them for a list. --Brian M 19:44, 16 Nov 2004 (CET) Categories So... what are these, why do they matter, and what do we do with them? Captain Mike mentioned them in a VfD discussion once, and I see them used on Wikipedia... -- Steve 03:36, 7 Dec 2004 (CET) :In MA/de we are currently testing them, so far they are quite handy, but we already had to move some categories and delete others. Best is you check Memory Alpha:Category tree and Memory Alpha talk:Category tree -- Kobi 17:59, 7 Dec 2004 (CET) ::Would there be any objections to my creating categories for episode types based on primary storyline? For instance, Klingon, Romance, First Contact, Medical, War, Romulan, Ferengi, Cardassian, Bajoran Religion, Borg, Vulcan, Character Death. Alison9 08:17, 13 Jan 2005 (CET) :Would there be any use for a "Weapons" category? I think it would be good to have all the weapons articles accessable via one page. What does anyone else think? zsingaya 08:08, 14 Jan 2005 (CET) Looking for Star Trek the Magazine Hellow everyone. I was a huge fan of Star Trek the Magazine. However I missed 10 issues of the publication. Does anyone know where I could get the back issues? : I don't intend to feature advertising but what about this link: https://www.gefabbri.co.uk/startrek/index.asp?source=backcovers.asp BTW: Google came up with this! And doesn't Scott Bakula look like Gordon Freeman from "Half Life" on issue "November 2002"? -- Florian K 14:27, 15 Dec 2004 (CET) new MediaWiki version Hey, you've updated the MediaWiki with parameter "silent" instead of "verbose"! ;) I happen to see something like "Templeted used on page:" when editing this article and had a look on . There used to be something like "MediaWiki 1.3.4+", now it's 1.3.9. Are there any more killer features to know? -- Florian K 12:16, 16 Dec 2004 (CET) History, physiology, philosophy, etc articles Articles like Klingon Physiology, Ferengi History, Q Philosophy, Vulcan Mating Rituals etc. keep popping up on VfD.. is there any way we can create a more solid guideline for creating these articles so that they dont end up as graveyard fodder, and also the question has been asked: do they more rightfully belong at Klingon physiology, Ferengi history, Q philosophy and Vulcan mating (naming convention)? Dicussion? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:26, 16 Dec 2004 (CET) :With the exception of Vulcans, Klingons, and Ferengi, I don't think there is nearly enough information about the philosophy of any other species to justify a separate article; it's just clumsy when that information's not combined with the main species article in those cases. I also think that the history articles, with the exception of humans, are just redundant and should be merged with the history sections of respective articles (Cardassian History merged with Cardassians, Cardassian Union, and any separate articles like First Hebitian Civilization). I've argued for this before and I still think there's nothing covered in those history articles that wouldn't be covered in one or all of those other pages, which already repeat the information enough times for my taste. :For naming conventions, I think it should be "Klingon philosophy" rather than "Klingon Philosophy". Capitalizing a non-proper noun just bothers me because it pretends a formality that doesn't exist. -- EtaPiscium 20:38, 16 Dec 2004 (CET) For past discussions of this topic, please see: Talk:Interstellar History, Talk:Romulan History. Another good read is Wiki is not paper, especially the section "How long should the ideal article be?". If an article about X physiology would consist of two or three sentences, we don't need a separate article - but we don't necessarily need to restrict ourselves to one humongous article per species either; if we know enough about Romulan History, for example, why should we have to put everything on Romulan? Regarding capitalization: I agree, it should probably be lower-case. -- Cid Highwind 13:19, 17 Dec 2004 (CET) :And again my issue is with repetition and convenience. Undoubtedly any article about the Romulans would include something about history (it would probably be the biggest section), and so I see no need to separate it into a separate article. In fact I think that would be clumsy and redundant, because either a very vital part of the subject isn't readily accessible on the page or only a cursory summary is provided with a link to another page with a slightly less cursory summary. I don't see what's so wrong with just collecting the information on a single page, because certainly it's more convenient to simply scroll down an article rather than having to follow a separate link. At present, the histories provided at the pages such as Klingon Empire, Klingon, and Dominion are already more comprehensive than their respective history pages, which are woefully inadequate by comparison. -- EtaPiscium 00:39, 18 Dec 2004 (CET) ::Well, actually, as far as convenience goes, there's a lot of material duplicated between History on Klingon and Klingon Empire. Ideally, I think, each page should have a blurb and tell you to see more at Klingon history-- that's how I did it with Xindi and Xindi history. Now it may not be useful for all species, but the Klingons, Romulans, and so on could all do with separate history articles to keep things less cluttered. As for physiology and philosophy-- those could certainly belong to the main article, since we rarely know that much about those aspects of aliens. ::As a matter of note, if we don't count "sector" in things like Mutara sector as being a proper noun, we sure shouldn't count "History" in things like Xindi History. -- Steve 01:07, 18 Dec 2004 (CET) About the use of disambiguation pages Right now, there are several pages claiming to be "disambiguation pages" (DP), such as Alpha, Beta, Gamma... I don't know if these are really necessary (or valid DPs at all). In my opinion, a DP should be created only if there are several "objects" that are normally referred to using the same term. Enterprise, for example, is such a term, because it is used to refer to one of many starships as well as the latest series. Alpha, though, could be a disambiguation page for Alpha (Jem'Hadar), Alpha Quadrant and Alpha system and others, but definitely shouldn't include links to articles like Treaty of Alpha Cygnus IX (no one would refer to that treaty as simply "Alpha"). In this case, the search function of this wiki seems to be good enough (try searching for "Zeta", for example). -- Cid Highwind 12:55, 17 Dec 2004 (CET) :Yeah, this was occuring to me as I wrote Beta through Epsilon; Alpha was created by someone else (Mike maybe?) and that's what gave me the idea. Wikipedia, though, does do these basically the way we are right now: Wikipedia:Alpha, Wikipedia:Beta, &c. -- Steve 00:32, 18 Dec 2004 (CET) copyright on cover-texts? I found many copies of cover-texts of novels inside MA, for instance Time's Enemy or First Strike. Is that covered by the Memory Alpha:Copyrights? I always thought verbatim copy of any material should be avoided; I'm not quite sure if the back cover texts are ment to be copyrighted since it is a kind of advertisement. Is there someone with proofed knowledge about that? -- Florian K 18:55, 23 Dec 2004 (CET) Stardates While reading the 30th Anniversary Special Collector's Edition Star Trek book, I noticed some information on the Stardates that is not included in Memory-Alpha's "Stardate" entry. It mentions that the the digit following the decimal indicates one-tenth of a 24-hour period, logic dictating that a single unit is equal to one earth-day. This seems somewhat incongruous with the fact that the 3 digits preceding the decimal from 000 to 999 reveal the progression of a single earth year (although the book indicates that those 3 digits progress unevenly). Could someone else amend the Memory-Alpha entry to account for this info, despite its incongruities, I don't trust that I could improve the entry myself. Battle tactics and maneuvers I have no idea if there is where I am to post this, but it seems just as good a place as any. So far in my data collection I've noticed a few mentioned battle tactics, including: * Cochrane deceleration maneuver * Evasive maneuver * ''Kavis Teke'' elusive maneuver * Kumeh maneuver * Passive Lure stratagem * Picard Maneuver * Riker Maneuver * Talupian stratagem ...then of course we have all the "Evasive maneuvers! Pattern Delta!", for example, type tactics. Is there some way we can employ all of these into one topic rather than to let them all linger on their own (once articles are established, that is)? I know the "Pattern Delta" or "Pattern Omega" commands are pretty generic, but Sisko actually explains what a "Pattern Delta" (or something of the like) is in DS9: "Shattered Mirror". How might I go about presenting this in an article without simply making a list...or is that about the only option I have (making a list, that is)?? Thanks. --Gvsualan 06:26, 28 Dec 2004 (CET) Isn't "Pattern Delta" an evasive maneuver? The way I see it, evasive maneuvers covers terms like PD, but "pattern delta" is a combination of moves which is probably part of the Starfleet Academy curriculum, and its just a shorter way of saying the moves it encompases. Maybe you should start a page called Evasive Maneuvers? --Defiant : Good point. --Gvsualan 22:14, 30 Dec 2004 (CET) Stars and Star systems What is the actual added value of all those stub-sized ___ system articles? Take for example Regulus and Regulan system. I was looking at Regulus, and to get to Regulus III, I first have to click on Regulan system, which has zero information and just links to the planets. I expected to find these links on the article on the star Regulus. Then there is the information on the Battle of Regulus, which is only linked in Regulus, not in Regulan system, leading to more confusion and discussion. Why not simply combine these two typed of articles? Neither of these articles are ever going to be very long. Even Sol, likely the biggest star/star system article we'll ever have, are just two small articles at the moment. -- Harry 23:34, 6 Jan 2005 (CET) :The original idea was to separate the "star" from the "system", I think - about a year ago, we started adding all those bits of real astronomical information to articles about stars, and at that point it seemed like a good idea (at least to me) to have a separate article about those "brand name" stars. In these cases, I still think that "star articles" are a good idea. At the same time, we needed the "X system" articles, both because these article titles often were terms used in the episodes and because we simply didn't know (or could only assume) the names of the respective stars. While I still believe that this (having the possibility of both the "star" and "star system" articles) is necessary and a good idea, I agree that this system got out of control somewhat. The best example of this is the list of stars and stellar bodies which is more than just a little messy in my opinion. In short, any form of cleanup would be nice, but we can't simply remove either all "star" articles or all "star system" articles. -- Cid Highwind 23:59, 2005 Jan 6 (CET) ::Some of them could do without.. i'd still say that every star X that has a system should have an 'X system' redirect should there not be a necessity for a system article. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel ::I think we need to narrow down the policy, and only allow 'X system' articles for references for which we don't know the name of the primary (like Goren system, which could strictly speaking also be a planetary system or even a starcluster, judging by the sometimes confusing language). But confirmed stars should not have a separate 'X system' article, and we should use a redirect in these cases. To summarize: ::# If we have no further information on a system, and the primary of the system is not a known object, put the article at __ system. ::# Otherwise, if the primary is known, link to that article or use a __ system redirect. ::Articles like Devron system are good examples of #1, but cases like Regulus and Alpha Centauri need cleaning up. -- Harry 14:32, 7 Jan 2005 (CET) :::I think the rule of thumb is that any system where the system name and the star name are identical should go under the star article. This works well, for example, that Altair is the main article and Altair system simply redirects back to it. The only separate "system" articles that could and should remain in this case are those where the name of the star is unknown or unlisted, or when the system has a separate name from the star. The last system article possible under the new rule would be a tiered system: the Alpha Centauri system has three stars, each with its own separate system (a subsystem?). -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:10, 9 Jan 2005 (CET) :::User:EtaPiscium is concerned (Talk:Vico (star)) about the number of redirects this will create. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:12, 10 Jan 2005 (CET) :::::What I propose instead is that only star systems where the star is known and is the same as the system name should be combined with the star systems. That means star systems around real stars (i.e. "Acamar system") would be under "Acamar", as would systems where the star is known (i.e. "Monac"/"Monac system") For systems whose parent stars have never been mentioned (i.e. "Volon system"), I recommend the article stay under "Volon system" because there is no possibility that another article will ever link to just "Volon". That will cut down on the number of redirects enormously, since we know of many systems only through their planets (i.e. "Narendra IV"/"Narendra system") and through them the star ("Narendra"), and there's no need to have a redirect when any conceivable reference to the system will linked to "Narendra system" and not "Narendra". -- EtaPiscium 21:24, 10 Jan 2005 (CET) :::I simply think that I prefer the simpler names.. as you can see from Talk:Vico (star). If an article's main home resides at the simpler name as a rule, it will be a lot easier to link to about three-quarters of the star / system articles on this site, by keeping them in one main name form, with the separate solar system names that exist only when absolutely necessary. I don't think it makes much of an issue if 10 articles link to a Vico system redirect and only 2 or so link to Vico (star) -- because they all end up at the same article. Wiki naming conventions suggest the simpler article name and support an infrastructure of useful redirects anyway, i'm saying we use it. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:48, 10 Jan 2005 (CET) ::::The problem is that there will be no articles that link to "Vico (star)" because it's never been mentioned, nor is "Vico (star)" particularly convenient a link because of the qualifier attached to it. The simplest name is not always the best one; I think that the most logical name is best. In the case of Vico, when I'm writing about the Vico system because it's mentioned in the episode, the obvious thought is to link it to "Vico system", rather than having to make a jump to "Vico (star)", which somebody might not even think of because it's non-intuitive to link to the star when you're talking about the system. If all the systems we know of are instead switched to their stars, there'll be a bunch of broken links from people who're writing and believe that "X system" is the correct nomenclature, that'll either have to be fixed or changed to a redirect. I don't see why we have to implement a system that makes it more difficult for people to put in the correct links. -- EtaPiscium 00:12, 11 Jan 2005 (CET) :::I agree with both of you. In the case of Vico, there's enough evidence that Vico is a star. In the case of Volon, there is not. I don't agree with the Narendra example. What's the point of the Narendra system page? There is only one planet, Narendra III, and we know absolutely nothing about the Narendra system apart from that. I suggest we don't make ___ system pages for every minor planet with Roman numerals. -- Harry 22:06, 10 Jan 2005 (CET) ::::Unfortunately there're already a bunch of them out there since a while ago I was looking at edits people made to my planet articles and I started assuming that was the protocol for all planets with Roman numerals. -- EtaPiscium 00:14, 11 Jan 2005 (CET) :This seems to become even more complicated than I feared... Some questions I asked myself when reading this discussion were: :*'Which pages are necessary?' I think that each "object" that was mentioned deserves a page - even if it is a redirect page to another article (which makes sense in some cases, of course). Regarding the "Vico"-issue, this means that both "Vico _" (whatever numeral was used in this case) and "Vico system" deserve to exist, while "Vico" is just an assumed title - a good assumption, but still an assumption. :*'What is the ''simplest title?' I agree that articles should exist at a "most simple" title, but what is or isn't "simple" depends on the context. If "Vico system" was mentioned in an episode and "Vico" was not, can the latter one really be the "simplest title"? If "Vico" even is a disambiguation page, does it really make sense to use "Vico (star)" instead of "Vico system"? :There are good arguments for both sides - what we will most probably end up with is a mess of both "star" and "star system" articles, with additional redirects to and from both. It simply isn't possible to create ''only star articles or only star system articles (although it would be nice, for example when trying to categorize all these). I don't have an easy solution, but I'm unsure if we should simply continue deleting some of the existing pages at the moment... -- Cid Highwind 01:16, 2005 Jan 11 (CET) :Additional note regarding categorization: Please keep in mind that it is not possible to categorize redirects. If we ever want to have a "Category:Stars" or a "Category:Star systems", it might be a good idea to not have a redirect at that article title. Perhaps the idea of having both articles (if both are known or can at least be reasonably assumed, of course) isn't that bad after all? Perhaps we should just update the relevant templates to avoid extraneous clicks (as described in the initial post) instead... -- Cid Highwind 11:50, 2005 Jan 11 (CET)